THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT:
ENDIX notes
preferential legislation or a favorable regulation. The word “corruptly” connotes an evil motive or purpose, an intent to wrongfully influence the recipient.
S.Rep. No. 95-114, at 10.
76 See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1(a), 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3(a).
77 See, e.g., Complaint, SEC v. Monsanto Co., No. 05-cv-14 (D.D.C.
Jan. 6, 2005) (among other things, the company paid a $50,000 bribe to influence an Indonesian official to repeal an unfavorable law, which was not repealed despite the bribe), available at http://www.sec.gov/ litigation/complaints/comp19023.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Monsanto Co., No. 05-cr-8 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2005), available at
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/monsanto-co/01-06- 05monsanto-info.pdf.
78 Jury instructions in FCPA cases have defined “corruptly” consistent
with the definition found in the legislative history. See, e.g., Jury Instructions at 22-23, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 10, United States v. Green, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 35, United States v. Jefferson, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 25,
United States v. Bourke, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 17, United States v. Kay, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 5, United States v. Mead,
supra note 44.
79 See Complaint, SEC v. Innospec, Inc., No. 10-cv-448 (D.D.C. Mar.
18, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Innospec], available at http:// www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21454.pdf; Criminal Information at 8, United States v. Innospec Inc., No. 10-cr-61 (D.D.C. Mar. 17, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. Innospec],
available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/innospec- inc/03-17-10innospec-info.pdf.
80 See Complaint, SEC v. Innospec, supra note 79; Criminal Information,
United States v. Innospec, supra note 79.
81 See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(g)(2)(A), 78dd-3(e)(2)(A), 78ff(c)(2)(A). 82 Compare 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(c)(1)(A) (corporate criminal liability under
issuer provision) with § 78ff(c)(2)(A)(individual criminal liability under issuer provision); compare 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(g)(1)(A) (corporate criminal liability under domestic concern provision) with § 78dd-2(g) (2)(A) (individual criminal liability under issuer provision); compare
15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3(e)(1)(A) (corporate criminal liability for territorial provision) with § 78dd-3(e)(2)(A) (individual criminal liability for territorial provision). However, companies still must act corruptly.
See Section 30A(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3(a).
83 United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 448 (5th Cir. 2007); see also
Jury Instructions at 38, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 10, United States v. Green, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 35, United States v. Jefferson, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 25,
United States v. Bourke, supra note 44; Jury Instructions at 5, United States v. Mead, supra note 44.
84 Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1998) (construing
“willfully” in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)); see also Kay, 513 F.3d at 446- 51 (discussing Bryan and term “willfully” under the FCPA).
85 Kay, 513 F.3d at 447-48; Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen
Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int’l B.V. v. Schreiber, 327 F.3d 173, 181 (2d Cir. 2003).
86 The phrase “anything of value” is not defined in the FCPA, but the
identical phrase under the domestic bribery statute has been broadly construed to include both tangible and intangible benefits. See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 525 F.3d 1033, 1048 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejecting defendant’s objection to instruction defining sex as a “thing of value,” which “unambiguously covers intangible considerations”); United States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1304-05 (6th Cir. 1986) (holding that loans and promises of future employment are “things of value”); United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603, 622-23 (2d Cir. 1983) (approving jury instruction that stock could be a “thing of value” if defendant believed it had value, even though the shares had no commercial value, and noting that “[t]he phrase ‘anything of value’ in bribery and related statutes has consistently been given a broad meaning”).
87 Section 30A(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(a), 78dd-
3(a) (emphasis added).
88 Like the FCPA, the domestic bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, prohibits
giving, offering, or promising “anything of value.” Numerous domestic
AP E
bribery cases under Section 201 have involved “small” dollar bribes.
See, e.g., United States v. Franco, 632 F.3d 880, 882-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming bribery convictions of inmate for paying correctional officer $325 to obtain cell phone, food, and marijuana, and noting that 18 U.S.C. § 201 does not contain minimum monetary threshold); United States v. Williams, 216 F.3d 1099, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (affirming bribery conviction for $70 bribe to vehicle inspector); United States v. Traitz, 871 F.2d 368, 396 (3rd Cir. 1989) (affirming bribery conviction for $100 bribe paid to official of Occupational Health and Safety Administration); United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming bribery convictions including $100 bribe to immigration official); United States v. Bishton, 463 F.2d 887, 889 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (affirming bribery conviction for $100 bribe to division chief of District of Columbia Sewer Operations Division).
89 Complaint, SEC v. Daimler AG, supra note 48; Criminal Information,
United States v. Daimler AG, supra note 48.
90 Complaint, SEC v. Halliburton Company and KBR, Inc., No. 09-cv-
399 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2009), ECF No 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Halliburton and KBR], available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/ comp20897.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, No. 09-cr-71, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2009) [hereinafter United States v. KBR], available at http://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/kelloggb/02-06-09kbr-info.pdf.
91 Complaint, SEC v. Halliburton and KBR, supra note 90; Criminal
Information, United States v. KBR, supra note 90.
92 See, e.g., Complaint, SEC v. RAE Sys. Inc., No. 10-cv-2093 (D.D.C.
Dec. 10, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. RAE Sys., Inc.] (fur coat, among other extravagant gifts), available at http://www.sec.gov/ litigation/complaints/2010/comp21770.pdf; Non-Pros. Agreement, In re RAE Sys. Inc. (Dec. 10, 2010) [hereinafter In re RAE Sys. Inc.] (same), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/ rae-systems/12-10-10rae-systems.pdf; Complaint, SEC v. Daimler AG,
supra note 48 (armored Mercedes Benz worth €300,000); Criminal Information, United States v. Daimler AG, supra note 48 (same).
93 See Complaint, SEC v. ABB Ltd, No. 04-cv-1141 (D.D.C. July
6, 2004), ECF No. 1, available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/ complaints/comp18775.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. ABB Vetco Gray Inc., et al., No. 04-cr-279 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2004), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. ABB Vetco Gray], available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/abb/06-22- 04abbvetco-info.pdf.
94 Complaint, SEC v. UTStarcom, Inc., No. 09-cv-6094 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
31, 2009), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. UTStarcom], available at
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp21357.pdf; Non- Pros. Agreement, In re UTStarcom Inc. (Dec. 31, 2009) [hereinafter In re UTStarcom], available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/ cases/utstarcom-inc/12-31-09utstarcom-agree.pdf.
95 Complaint, SEC v. UTStarcom, supra note 94; Non-Pros. Agreement,
In re UTStarcom, supra note 94.
96 Complaint, SEC v. UTStarcom, supra note 94; Non-Pros. Agreement,
In re UTStarcom, supra note 94.
97 Complaint, SEC v. Lucent Technologies Inc., No. 07-cv-2301 (D.D.C.
Dec. 21, 2007), ECF No.1 [hereinafter SEC v. Lucent], available at
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2007/comp20414.pdf; Non- Pros. Agreement, In re Lucent Technologies (Nov. 14, 2007) [hereinafter
In re Lucent], available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/ cases/lucent-tech/11-14-07lucent-agree.pdf.
98 Complaint, SEC v. Lucent, supra note 97; Non-Pros. Agreement, In re
Lucent, supra note 97.
99 The company consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently
enjoining it from future violations of the books and records and internal
P nd
controls provisions and paid a civil penalty of $1,500,000. Complaint, No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. York Int’l Corp.], available at http://www.sec.
SEC v. Lucent, supra note 97. Additionally, the company entered into a gov/litigation/complaints/2007/comp20319.pdf; Criminal Information, non-prosecution agreement with DOJ and paid a $1,000,000 monetary United States v. York Int’l Corp., No. 07-cr-253 (D.D.C. Oct. 1, 2007), penalty. Non-Pros. Agreement, In re Lucent, supra note 97. ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. York Int’l Corp.], available at
100 United States v. Liebo, 923 F.2d 1308, 1311 (8th Cir. 1991). http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/york/10-01-07york- 101 Judgment, United States v. Liebo, No. 89-cr-76 (D. Minn. Jan. 31, info.pdf; Complaint, SEC v. Textron Inc., No. 07-cv-1505 (D.D.C. Aug.
1992), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/ 23, 2007), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Textron], available at http:// liebor/1992-01-31-liebor-judgment.pdf. www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2007/comp20251.pdf; Non-Pros.
102 Complaint, SEC v. Schering-Plough Corp., No. 04-cv-945 (D.D.C. Agreement, In re Textron Inc. (Aug. 23, 2007), available at http://www.
June 9, 2004), ECF No. 1, available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/ justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/textron-inc/08-21-07textron- complaints/comp18740.pdf; Admin. Proceeding Order, In the Matter agree.pdf. DOJ has issued opinion procedure releases concerning of Schering-Plough Corp., Exchange Act Release No. 49838 (June 9, payments (that were, in essence, donations) to government agencies or 2004) (finding that company violated FCPA accounting provisions and departments. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, FCPA Op. Release 09-01 imposing $500,000 civil monetary penalty), available at http://www.sec. (Aug. 3, 2009) (involving donation of 100 medical devices to foreign gov/litigation/admin/34-49838.htm. government), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/
103 FCPA opinion procedure releases can be found at http://www. fcpa/opinion/2009/0901.pdf; U.S. Dept. of Justice, FCPA Op.
justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/. In the case of the company seeking to Release 06-01 (Oct. 16, 2006) (involving contribution of $25,000 to contribute the $1.42 million grant to a local MFI, DOJ noted that it had regional customs department to pay incentive rewards to improve local undertaken each of these due diligence steps and controls, in addition to enforcement of anti-counterfeiting laws), available at http://www.justice. others, that would minimize the likelihood that anything of value would gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/opinion/2006/0601.pdf.
be given to any officials of the Eurasian country. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 116 The United States has some state-owned entities, like the Tennessee
FCPA Op. Release 10-02 (July 16, 2010), available at http://www. Valley Authority, that are instrumentalities of the government. McCarthy justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/opinion/2010/1002.pdf. v. Middle Tenn. Elec. Membership Corp., 466 F.3d 399, 411 n.18
104 U.S. Dept. of Justice, FCPA Op. Release 95-01 (Jan. 11, (6th Cir. 2006) (“[T]here is no question that TVA is an agency and
1995), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/ instrumentality of the United States.”) (internal quotes omitted). opinion/1995/9501.pdf. 117 During the period surrounding the FCPA’s adoption, state-owned
105 Id. entities held virtual monopolies and operated under state-controlled
106 Id. price-setting in many national industries around the world. See generally
107 U.S. Dept. of Justice, FCPA Op. Release 97-02 (Nov. 5, World Bank, Bureaucrats in Business: The Economics
1997), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/ and Politics of Government Ownership, World Bank opinion/1997/9702.pdf; U.S. Dept. of Justice, FCPA Op. Release Policy Research Report at 78 (1995); Sunita Kikeri and 06-01 (Oct. 16, 2006), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ Aishetu Kolo, State Enterprises, The World Bank Group fraud/fcpa/opinion/2006/0601.pdf. (Feb. 2006), available at http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/
108 U.S. Dept. of Justice, FCPA Op. Release 06-01 (Oct. 16, 2006). publicpolicyjournal/304Kikeri_Kolo.pdf.
109 Id. 118 Id. at 1 (“[A]fter more than two decades of privatization, government
110 Id. ownership and control remains widespread in many regions—and in
111 See Section 30A(a)(1)-(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a) many parts of the world still dominates certain sectors.”).
(1)-(3); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(a)(1)-(3), 78dd-3(a)(1)-(3). 119 To date, consistent with the approach taken by DOJ and SEC, all 112 Section 30A(f )(1)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f )(1) district courts that have considered this issue have concluded that this is
(A); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(h)(2)(A), 78dd-3(f )(2)(A). an issue of fact for a jury to decide. See Order, United States v. Carson,
113 Under the FCPA, any person “acting in an official capacity for 2011 WL 5101701, No. 09-cr-77 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2011), ECF No.
or on behalf of ” a foreign government, a department, agency, or 373 [hereinafter United States v. Carson]; United States v. Aguilar, 783 instrumentality thereof, or a public international organization, is a F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Order, United States v. Esquenazi, foreign official. Section 30A(f )(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f )(1)(A); 15 supra note 44, ECF No. 309; see also Order, United States v. O’Shea, No. U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(h)(2)(A), 78dd-2(f )(2)(A). See also U.S. Dept. of 09-cr-629 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2012), ECF No. 142; Order, United States Justice, FCPA Op. Release No. 10-03, at 2 (Sept. 1, 2010), available v. Nguyen, No. 08-cr-522 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2009), ECF No. 144. These
at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/opinion/2010/1003.pdf district court decisions are consistent with the acceptance by district (listing safeguards to ensure that consultant was not acting on behalf of courts around the country of over 35 guilty pleas by individuals who foreign government). admitted to violating the FCPA by bribing officials of state-owned or
114 But see Sections 30A(b) and f(3)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § state-controlled entities. See Government’s Opposition to Defendants’
78dd-1(b) & (f )(3); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(b) & (h)(4), 78dd-3(b) & (f ) Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Ten of the (4) (facilitating payments exception). Indictment at 18, United States v. Carson, supra note 119, ECF No. 332;
115 Even though payments to a foreign government may not violate the Exhibit I, United States v. Carson, supra note 119, ECF No. 335 (list of
anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, such payments may violate other examples of enforcement actions based on foreign officials of state-owned U.S. laws, including wire fraud, money laundering, and the FCPA’s entities).
accounting provisions. This was the case in a series of matters brought by 120Jury Instructions, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44, ECF No.
DOJ and SEC involving kickbacks to the Iraqi government through the 520; Order at 5 and Jury Instructions, United States v. Carson, supra note United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. See, e.g., Complaint, SEC v. 119, ECF No. 373 and ECF No. 549; Aguilar, 783 F. Supp. 2d at 1115.
Innospec, supra note 79; Criminal Information, United States v. Innospec, 121 Criminal Information, United States v. C.E. Millier Corp., et al.,
supra note 79; Complaint, SEC v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. 09-cv-862 No. 82-cr-788 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 1982), available at http://www. (D.D.C. May 11, 2009), ECF No. 1, available at http://www.sec.gov/ justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/ce-miller/1982-09-17-ce-miller- litigation/complaints/2009/comp21033.pdf; Criminal Information, information.pdf.
United States v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. 09-cr-126 (D.D.C. May 11, 122 See Complaint, SEC v. Sam P. Wallace Co., Inc., et al., No. 81-cv-
2009), ECF No. 1, available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ 1915 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 1982); Criminal Information, United States v. fraud/fcpa/cases/nordiskn/05-11-09novo-info.pdf; Complaint, Sam P. Wallace Co., Inc., No. 83-cr-34 (D.P.R. Feb. 23, 1983), available
SEC v. Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., No. 07-cv-1955 (D.D.C. Oct. at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/sam-wallace- 31, 2007), ECF No. 1, available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/ company/1983-02-23-sam-wallace-company-information.pdf; see also
complaints/2007/comp20353.pdf; Criminal Information, United States Criminal Information, United States v. Goodyear Int’l Corp., No. 89- v. Ingersoll-Rand Italiana SpA, No. 07-cr-294 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2007), cr-156 (D.D.C. May 11, 1989) (Iraqi Trading Company identified as ECF No. 1, available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/ “instrumentality of the Government of the Republic of Iraq”), available
cases/ingerand-italiana/10-31-07ingersollrand-info.pdf; Complaint, at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/goodyear/1989- SEC v. York Int’l Corp., No. 07-cv-1750 (D.D.C. Oct. 1, 2007), ECF 05-11-goodyear-information.pdf.
ENDIX notes
123 See Complaint, SEC v. ABB, supra note 48; Criminal Information at
3, United States v. ABB Inc., No. 10-cr-664 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. ABB], available at http:// www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/abb/09-20-10abbinc-info. pdf; Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos [C.P.], as amended, art. 27, Diario Oficial de la Federación [DO], 5 de Febrero de 1917 (Mex.); Ley Del Servicio Publico de Energia Electrica, as amended, art. 1-3, 10, Diario Oficial de la Federación [DO], 22 de Diciembre de 1975 (Mex.).
124 See Indictment at 2, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44, ECF No.
3; Affidavit of Mr. Louis Gary Lissade at 1-9, id., ECF No. 417-2.
125 Criminal Information at 30-31, United States v. Alcatel-Lucent France,
supra note 56, ECF No. 10.
126 Id.
127 See International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-366 § 2, 112 Stat. 3302, 3303, 3305, 3308 (1998).
128 Section 30A(F)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f )(1)
(B); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(h)(2)(B), 78dd-3(f )(2)(B).
129 Third parties and intermediaries themselves are also liable for FCPA
violations. Section 30A(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(a), and 78dd-3(a).
130 Section 30A(a)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a)(3); 15
U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(a)(3), 78dd-3(a)(3).
131 See, e.g., Complaint, SEC v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 11-cv-686
(D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2011) [hereinafter SEC v. Johnson & Johnson] (bribes paid through Greek and Romanian agents)), available at http://www.sec. gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp21922.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. DePuy, Inc., No. 11-cr-99 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2011), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. DePuy] (bribes paid through Greek agents), available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/ depuy-inc/04-08-11depuy-info.pdf; Complaint, SEC v. ABB, supra note 48 (bribes paid through Mexican agents); Criminal Information, United States v. ABB, supra note 123 (same); Criminal Information, United States v. Int’l Harvester Co., No. 82-cr-244 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 1982) (bribes paid through Mexican agent), available at http://www.justice. gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/international-harvester/1982-11-17- international-harvester-information.pdf.
132 See Criminal Information, United States v. Marubeni Corp., No. 12-
cr-22 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2012), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. Marubeni], available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/ cases/marubeni/2012-01-17-marubeni-information.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. JGC Corp., supra note 60, ECF No. 1; Criminal Information, United States v. Snamprogetti, supra note 60, ECF No. 1; Complaint, SEC v. ENI, S.p.A. and Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V., No. 10-cv-2414 (S.D. Tex. July 7, 2010), ECF No. 1, available at
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp-pr2010-119.pdf; Criminal Information, United States v. Technip S.A., No. 10-cr-439 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter United States v. Technip],
available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/technip- sa/06-28-10-technip-%20information.pdf; Complaint, SEC v. Technip, No. 10-cv-2289 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Technip], available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/ comp-pr2010-110.pdf; Indictment, United States v. Tesler, supra note 50; Complaint, SEC v. Halliburton and KBR, supra note 90; Criminal Information, United States v. KBR, supra note 90; Criminal Information,
United States v. Stanley, No. 08-cr-597 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2008), ECF No. 1, available at http://justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/stanleya/08- 29-08stanley-info.pdf.
133 See Criminal Information, United States v. AGA Medical Corp., No.
08-cr-172, ECF No. 1 (D. Minn. June 3, 2008), available at http://www. justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/agamedcorp/06-03-08aga-info. pdf.
134 Complaint, SEC v. Innospec, supra note 79; Criminal Information,
United States v. Innospec, supra note 79; Superseding Criminal Information, United States v. Naaman, supra note 50, ECF No. 15,
available at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/ naamano/06-24-10naaman-supsersed-info.pdf; Complaint, SEC v. Turner, supra note 50.
135 See sources cited supra note 68. 136 See sources cited supra note 68.
137 Section 30A(a)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a)(3); 15
U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(a)(3), 78dd-3(a)(3).
138 See Section 30A(f )(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f )
(2)(A); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(h)(3)(A), 78dd-3(f )(3)(A).
139 See Section 30A(f )(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(f )
(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(h)(3)(B), 78dd-3(f )(3)(B). The “knowing” standard was intended to cover “both prohibited actions that are taken with ‘actual knowledge’ of intended results as well as other actions that, while falling short of what the law terms ‘positive knowledge,’ nevertheless evidence a conscious disregard or deliberate ignorance of known circumstances that should reasonably alert one to the high probability of violations of the Act.” H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 920; see also Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100- 418, § 5003, 102 Stat. 1107, 1423-24 (1988).
140 H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 920 (1988).
141 Section 30A(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(c)(1); 15
U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(c)(1), 78dd-3(c)(1).
142 H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 922. The conferees also noted that “[i]n
interpreting what is ‘lawful under the written laws and regulations’ . . . the normal rules of legal construction would apply.” Id.
143 See United States v. Kozeny, 582 F. Supp. 2d 535, 537-40 (S.D.N.Y.
2008). Likewise, the court found that a provision under Azeri law that relieved bribe payors of criminal liability if they were extorted did not make the bribe payments legal. Azeri extortion law precludes the prosecution of the payor of the bribes for the illegal payments, but it does not make the payments legal. Id. at 540-41.
144 Section 30A(c)(2)(A), (B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(c)
(2); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(c)(2), 78dd-3(c)(2).
145 For example, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that
providing airline tickets to a government official in order to corruptly influence that official may form the basis for a violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. SeeLiebo, 923 F. 2d at 1311-12.
146 See generally U.S. Dept. of Justice, FCPA Op. Release 11-01
(June 30, 2011) (travel, lodging, and meal expenses of two foreign officials for two-day trip to United States to learn about services of U.S.